1

Dmitry Frolov. Medieval Muslim Discussions about the Order of S ras and Their

Relevance for the Study of the Composition of the Qur’ n (2000)1.

1. We live at the age when the mankind is coming to the understanding that

the confrontation has no future and that it has – sooner or later – to give way to the

cooperation as the basic principle of human coexistence. This cooperation – if it is

fruitful – presupposes that no one has to give up one's identity as a price for it. It

has to be a manifestation of the idea of “unity in variety” if I can use in this context

the phrase coined up by the late Professor Grunebaum whose life and works are an

example of the fruitful cross-cultural contacts.

2. In the field of the humanities it means that time “to gather stones” has

come. We are to study carefully and re-evaluate all knowledge that has been

accumulated by scholars of different cultures, religions, epochs, etc. at its own

value in order to make it our common legacy which can help us to define future

perspectives. As the saying goes, “it takes all kinds to make the world”. The theme

of the present congress – “Oriental and Asian Studies in the Era of Globalization:

Heritage and Modernity - Opportunities and Challenges” – is very up to date and

very much in tune with the present change of paradigm in Islamic studies.

Professor Stefan Wild in his introduction to the materials of the Bonn

symposium (1993) points out to “a definite and irrevocable shift of attention in the

last decades” attested in the Qur’ nic studies. It is the shift from the prehistory of

the Qur’ nic text (the quest for Jewish, Christian, Manichean, and other parallels

and influences and the study of the genesis of the Qur’ nic text and its redaction)

to “the Qur' n as a textual corpus redardless of its scriptural history”, or the text

1 This article is based on the paper given at the 36

th ICANAS in Montreal (2000)

and was published in 2001: D. Frolov. “Medieval Muslim Discussions about the

Order of S ras and Its Relevance for the Study of the Composition of the Qur’ n”

– Vestnik Moscovskogo Universiteta. Series 13 «Oriental Studies», 2001, № 1, 29-

40.

2

which “shaped and shapes the religious convictions of Muslims and is, moreover,

the central cultural text in many Islamic cultures”. This shift has two implications.

First, the Qur’ n has come to be seen as a literary document with its own structure,

composition and style. Second, the history of the interpretation of the Qur’ n, the

history of its reception, the history of its aesthetic role, in short, all that shows what

the Qur’ n meant for the generations of Muslims, is becoming an important new

focus of Qur’ nic research.2

Once again we see Ignaz Goldziher having started about a century ago with

his Die Richtungen der islamischen Koranauslegung (1920, on the basis of the

lectures delivered in 1913) what has become now a major trend of research. In the

introduction to materials of another symposium in the Qur’ nic studies, Andrew

Rippin mentions that “little attempt has been made in scholarly circles towards

updating, expanding, and ultimately replacing the now dated, although still

stimulating, insights of Goldziher” in the past decades and stresses the necessity of

a new survey of the history of Muslim exegetics and Muslim Qur’ nic studies.

Rippin says: “it is precisely through the exegetical works that we can establish a

history of reader reaction to the Qur’ n and arrive at a meaningful construct and

analysis of the Qur’ n, doubly meaningful, it would seem. Because we have

arrived at an intellectually satisfactory result and at the same time actually studying

what Muslims themselves have understood the Qur’ n to mean”.3

3. There is a kind of parallelism between the development of medieval

Muslim Qur’ nic studies and that of modern European scholarship. Both began

with the interest to the historical and linguistic aspects of the Scripture, and only

later they shifted to the study of its literary and stylistic aspects. In the studies of

2 See Wild's position in more detail in: The Qur’ n as Text (Leiden: Brill, 1996),

VII-XI. 3 See Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur’ n (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1988), 1-4.

3

the Qur’ nic style medieval Muslim scholars – as well as modern European

orientalists – first concentrated their attention on the features manifested on the

elementary level – tropes, rhetorical figures, imagery, rhyme and rhythm – most of

which can be studied within the range of an individual verse. The interest to the

higher levels of the scriptural style, namely, the composition of individual s ras, or

– more rarely – blocks or groups of s ras, or – even more rarely – the composition

of the Qur’ n as a whole, developed much later.

It seems that two things might have blocked or lessened the interest in the

composition of the Qur’ n in the European studies. First, the way in which the

Qur’ nic text was revealed, namely, by small portions delivered at different times

and different occasions, or mufarraqan as Muslim scholars say. Second, the way in

which the written Qur’anic text was compiled, namely, the s ras being mostly

composed of fragments delivered at different times and originally without any

connection between them, and the s ras in the mu af seemingly being arranged

in the order based on the purely formal principle, that of diminishing length. Both

factors directed the interest of scholars towards the study of a fragment rather than

the whole.

As a result, modern scholarship only comparatively recently started to deal

with the problem of the composition and style of the Qur’ nic text as a multi-

dimensional and complex problem. Suffice it to name Angelica Neuwirth and

Mustansir Mir as most recent examples of this new approach.

4. Roughly speaking we can discern two stages in the formation of the ideas

about the composition of the Qur’ n in medieval scholarship:

First, “pre-history” of the relevant disciplines (mid-8th - 10

th centuries). It

covers the process of the accumulation of traditions which formed the material

basis of future theoretical discussion of the Qur’ n during the so called period of

“written fixation” (al-tadw n) as well as the emergence of the three disciplines

4

which produced the framework for the generation of certain ideas relevant to the

problem under discussion. They are the science of the virtues of the Qur’ n (‘ilm

fa ’il al-Qur’ n), the science of the written codices (‘ilm al-ma if), and the

science of the inimitability of the Qur' n (‘ilm i‘j z al-Qur’ n).

Second, “history” of the two related disciplines, the science of the order of

s ras (‘ilm tart b al-suwar) and the science of correspondence or harmony (‘ilm

al-tan sub or al-mun sab t), which deals directly with the topic (11th

-15th

centuries).

5. Let us touch upon the first stage in brief. First comes the science of

fa ’il. According to such authorities as Suy and Zarkash , the list of the major

authors on this subject are:

1 - Ab ‘Ubayd al-Q sim ibn Sall m (d. 224/838), q ri’ and mu addith,

teacher of A mad ibn anbal and Bukh r , the first to compose a book on the

virtues of the Qur’ n, which is the only one published (Beirut, 1991), the first to

give (in this book) a survey of the Qur’ nic sciences.

2 - Ibn al- urays (d. 294/906), mu addith.

3 - Ibn Ab Shayba (d. 297/909), mu addith and authority in Qur’ nic

sciences.

4 - Nas ’ (d. 303/915), an author of Sunan, one of the six canonical

collections of ad th.

We can add to this list two other authors of canonical collections of ad th

who have special sections on fa 'il:

5 - Bukh r (d. 256/870).

6 - Tirmidh (d. 279/892).

5

Also we can include in this list a son of Ab D wud, another sheikh of the

six:

7 - Ab Bakr al-Sijist n known as Ibn Ab D wud (d. 316/929).

It is evident from this list that this discipline of the Qur’ nic studies is in fact

a branch of the ad th literature. This conclusion is confirmed if we look at the

contest of Ab ‘Ubayd’s book, which is in fact a thematically arranged collection

of traditions traced back (or attributed) to the Prophet and his companions. The

traditions gathered by Ab `’Ubayd are repeatedly quoted in books of later authors

who write on the order of s ras. This collection sets up a structure of the discipline

in question. It has two sections:

1 - virtues of the Scripture as a whole;

2 - virtues of the groups of s ras, individual s ras, and even isolate y ts.

The first section - among other things - helped to uproot in the consciousness

of the Muslim community the conviction that the Qur’ nic text is not simply a

collection of s ras and y ts, but a unity which is more than mere sum of its

constituents. Without this idea it would have been impossible to get interested in

the composition of the text as a vehicle to convey its message.

The second section accumulated the traditional material which showed that

there are blocks of s ras placed in succession, not only individual s ras, which are

elements in the structure of the Qur’ n. This idea proved very fruitful in later

studies of the composition of the Scripture.

Incidentally it was Ab ‘Ubayd who first draw attention to the well-known

ad th which eventually was understood as an indication made by Mu ammad

himself in respect to the overall compositional plan of the Qur' n (to be discussed

below):

6

“I was given the Seven Long s ras instead of the Torah, the s ras of hundred

verses (al-mi’ n) instead of the Gospel, the Repeated Ones (al-math n ) instead of

Psalms, and I was given the short s ras (al-mufa al) as a special favour”.4

The second discipline, or the science of the written codices represents a

branch of the Qur' nic sciences, a kind of an appendix to the science of Qur' nic

readings (‘ilm al-qir ’ t). It is a careful selection and purposeful arrangement of

the ad th material in order to depict the process of the written fixation and

codification of Qur’ nic text. The number of authors who wrote on the subject was

not large. The earliest of them mentioned in the Fihrist belong to mid-ninth

century C.E. but the three main authors mentioned both by Arthur Jeffery who

published the sole survivor of this group of treatises and by Suy in his Itq n are:

1 - The above-mentioned Ibn Ab D wud (d. 316/929), whose book was

published by Jeffery.

2 - Ibn al-Anb r , Ab Bakr Mu ammad ibn al-Q sim (d.327/940), an

authority in the Qur’ n, ad th, philology and grammar.

3 - Ibn Ashta al-I bah n (d. 360/971), a pupil of Ibn Muj hid, who had

codified the seven canonical readings of the Qur’ n, an authority in non-canonical

readings.

This discipline accumulated facts about the early codices prior to the

‘Uthm nic vulgata which clearly showed that various codices had different

arrangement of s ras in them. It also selected numerous traditions which showed

that even during the compilation of the ‘Uthm nic codex the compilers were

hesitant as to the order of s ras, or that Mu ammad himself occasionally grouped

s ras not in the order adopted in the ‘Uthm nic codex.

4 See Ab ‘Ubayd: Fa ’il al-Qur’ n, Beirut, 1991, 120.

7

All this objectively led to the question about the origin of the order of s ras

which was to become one of the crucial problems of the future discipline dealing

with the composition of the Qur' n.

Of the two disciplines already mentioned the latter got much more attention

among the European scholars than the first one. By the contrast, the former was

considered by Muslim scholars much more important as it was directly related to

the tasks of the Qur’ nic exegesis. It became a custom among the Muslim

mufassir n to mention the virtues of any s ra or a group of s ras in the beginning

of the commentary to it (or them).5

Unlike these two disciplines the third one, the science of the inimitability of

the Qur’ n was generated in the realm of the rational Muslim theology, namely the

Mu‘tazilite thought, not of in the realm of the sciences of the Scripture and

Tradition. Its origins are related most often with names of the Mu‘tazilite teacher

al-Na m (d. 231/845) and his pupil al-J i (d. 255/869) but none of their

writings on the subject has come down to us, as well as the treatise of another

Mu‘tazilite theologian, Mu ammad al-W si (d. 307/919).

The most famous authors mentioned in the Itq n whose treatises has been

preserved and published are:

1 - Ab Sulaym n al-Kha b (d. 388/998), faq h and mu addith.

2 – ‘Al ibn ‘ s al-Rumm n (d. 384/994), Mu‘tazilite theologian,

grammarian and authority in tafs r.

3 - Ab Bakr al-B qill n (d. 403/1013), a major theologian of the

Ash‘arite school.

5 As is often mentioned, only Zamakhshar gave the virtues of a s ra at the end of

the commentary to it, not in the beginning.

8

4 – ‘Abd al-Q hir al-Jurj n (d. 481/1078), philologist and grammarian, the

creator of the Arabic rhetorical theory.

Two ideas, elaborated by the theory of inimitability, proved important for

the study of the composition of the Qur’ n. First, the belief that the Qur’ n is a

miracle as a whole in all its parts and aspects. This implicitly meant that the

composition of an individual s ra or block of s ras, or the whole text is also part of

its inimitability. Second, the notion of na m which proved the instrument of the

analysis of the structure of the text on all its levels, from the combination of arfs

to the composition of the codex.

The list of the names which we compiled during the discussion of the “pre-

historical” stage actually coincides with that of the most quoted authors in later

works specially devoted to the problem of the composition of the Qur’ n.

6. Now the second, “historical” stage. The two relevant disciplines of this

stage are, so to say, extensions of the disciplines of the previous stage. More

specifically, the science of the order of s ras is a product of the development of the

science of the written codices, and the science of tan sub is a kind of extension of

the science of inimitability. They got ripe approximately at the same time, the

13th-14

th century C.E. The number of major authors is very narrow and practically

identical in both cases.

For the science of the order of s ras they are:

1 - Ibn al-Zubayr al-Garn (627/1230-708/1308), an Andalusian authority

in the Qur’ n and ad th, a M liki lawer, historian and grammarian. His treatise

al-Burh n f tart b suwar al-Qur’ n has recently been published (Rabat, 1990).

2 - Badr al-D n al-Zarkash (745/1344-794/1393), an Egyptian authority in

Qur’ nic sciences and ad th, a Sh fi‘i lawer. His treatise al-Burh n f ‘ul m

al-Qur’ n is also published (Beirut, 1988).

9

3 - Jal l al-D n al-Suy (849/1445-911/1505), whose book al-Itq n f

‘ul m al-Qur’ n is well known and has been published more than once.

For the science of tan sub this list comprises:

1 - Ibn al-Zubayr, the same treatise.

2 - Zarkash , the same treatise.

3 - Ibr h m ibn ‘Umar al-Biq ‘ (809/1406-885/1480), historian and ad b, an

authority in the Qur’ n and tafs r, lived in Syria and Egypt. His main treatise on the

subject is Na m al-durar f tan sub al- y t wa 'l-suwar also known as Mun sab t

al-Biq ‘ . It has recently been published (Beirut, 1995).

4 - Suy , the same Itq n plus a special treatise Tan suq al-durar f tan sub

al-suwar or Asr r tart b al-suwar published in Cairo, 1978.

Most of these scholars are well known in the history of the Qur’ nic

sciences.

Two things can be inferred from these data. First, the emergence of the twin

disciplines are the product of the synthesis of the sciences of tradition and kal m.

This synthesis represented – among others – by the above books by Zarkash and

Suy was one of the factors which helped to bring the Muslim Qur’ nic sciences

to completion. Second, it happened in al-Andalus and Egypt, which became two

main centers of Arabic culture at the end of the classical period after Iraq and Syria

had lost their priority.

7. The two main questions raised and studied by the twin sciences are:

First, what was the origin of the order of s ras in the ‘Uthm n codex, and

whether it was of the revelational (tawq f ) origin, like the order of verses within a

s ra, or it was the product of the human rational (ijtih d ) effort?

10

Second, whether there is an accord in meaning between the adjacent s ras as

well as a significant symbolic plan in the composition of the canonized ‘Uthm nic

codex which is believed to be an embodiment of the divine prototype?

Combined together the two questions represent one main problem, that of the

composition of the Qur’ n, taken in two aspects: historical and structural.

8. The Historical Aspect:

The earliest author, Ibn al-Zubayr of Granada, states that there are two

basically different answers to the first question: that of ijtih d and that of tawq f , and

discusses them at length, thus making the conceptual framework for all the

subsequent discussions of the problem.

He traces the first position, that of ijtih d, back to the founder of the M liki

legal school, M lik ibn Anas (d. 179/795). Being a M likite himself, Ibn al-Zubayr

naturally accepts this point of view, which he attributes also to B qill n , as always

mentioned by the scholars, in one of the two views, expressly stated by him. The

somewhat uncertain position of B qill n actually makes M lik the only

straightforward proponent of this hypothesis though we can also add the philologist

and lexicographer Ibn F ris (d. 395/1004) on the basis of the testimony of Suy .

Of the two figures mentioned by Ibn al-Zubayr in support of the ijtih d view

the figure of M lik raises some doubts. First, the problem itself began the focus of

interest much later. Second, I did not manage to find any of the relevant ad ths so

much discussed later in connection with this problem in his Muwa a’. It would be

safer to suggest that it was the common position of the M liki school, originated

somewhere between the 11th and the 13

th centuries and attributed – in the fashion of

those days – to its founder.

From the fact that Ibn al-Zubayr does not mention any names of proponents

of the tawq f view we can deduce that with the exception of the M likites and some

11

individual figures among the rational theologians and philologists, the majority of the

community, at least the Sunni community, represented by fuqah ’ and mu addith n

of the three remaining legal schools, held this view. It is well-known that medieval

scholars while enumerating several points of view on a given subject usually do not

mention the proponents of the view which they consider to be the position of the

majority (ijm ’). At the same time, individual positions which deviate from the ijm ’

are always mentioned together with the names of those who hold them.

We can also surmise that the tawq f view was part of traditional beliefs

emerged earlier than the other hypothesis. In any case, its proponents mentioned by

either by Zarkash or Suy or both belong to the 10th

century, for instance, the

above Ibn al-Anb r (d. 327/940) or Ab Ja‘far al-Na s (d. 338/950).

The defensive tone of Ibn al-Zubayr's argumentation also shows that the

position of the M likite school was considered by their opponents from the Mashriq

a challenge, which bordered on heresy. His technique of bridging the gap between

the two opposite views became the integral part of the exposition of the problem by

the later authors. It includes four steps:

First, having mentioned both positions Ibn al-Zubayr states that both parties

have their reasons to believe themselves right and none of these positions undermines

the m n and leads to heresy.

Second, he attributes to M lik the view that even if the order of s ras was set

up by the Companions and not by the Prophet himself, the former acted on the basis

of what they heard or saw from Mu ammad as the Companions always followed

what had been expressly said or implied by him. In other words, the opposition

between the two views is more verbal, than real.

Third, he repeatedly stresses that whichever view is accepted the scholar has to

remember that the order of the codex is based on the harmony (tan sub) and

12

meaningful correspondence between the adjacent s ras and in the order of s ras as a

whole and that this tan sub is an aspect of the Qur’ n's inimitability. Thus the scholar

turns out to be the first to tie the problems of tart b and tan sub into the integrated

theory of the composition of the Qur’ n.

Fourth, he quotes the opinion of Ibn ‘A iyya of Granada who suggested that

the order of many s ras has been pointed out by the Prophet, namely, the groups of

the Seven Long, the aw m m, the Mufa al, but to define the order of the rest has

been left to the umma. This intermediary position locked in the chain of

argumentation. As a result, what has previously been the opposition of the two

opinions turned out as a continuum of views slightly different from each other and

being in fact nothing more than just verbal variations which in any case does not

touch upon the validity of faith.

Ibn al-Zubayr so masterfully turned the situation upside down that the

resulting picture proved very convincing and has been repeated ever since even by

the scholars who did not share his point of view. The scholars of high standing, like

Zarkash and Suy , copied the slightest features of his style. Otherwise it would

have been hard to explain why both of them mentioned the two basic views in the

order set up by Ibn al-Zubayr and then changed the order of exposition and started

from the second view, not the first.

9. The structural aspect:

The most interesting for our theme is the argumentation used by the

opponents to support their respective views. Time is not enough to discuss at

length these arguments and all the implications which can be drawn from them for

the study of the Muslim views on the composition of the Qur’ n. So I confine

myself to several observations. A more detailed study of them I plan to publish

soon.

13

First, the texts we studied definitely show that the scholars believed that

there was a compositional plan of the text as a whole and that this plan was a

manifestation of the relation of the Scripture of Islam with the previous scriptures.

The starting point of the reflection in this direction was the famous ad th quoted

above:

“I was given the Seven Long s ras instead of the Torah, the s ras of hundred

verses (al-mi’ n) instead of the Gospel, the Repeated Ones (al-math n ) instead of

Psalms, and I was given the short s ras (al-mufa al) as a special favour”.

Two points interested scholars most of all:

First, the exact reference of the term math n which the majority understood as

referring to the F ti a but in the framework of the discussion of the composition of

the Qur’ n it was treated as denoting a group of s ras between the mi’ n and the

mufa al.

Second, the exact borderlines between the groups, especially the dividing line

between the first three groups taken together and the group of the mufa al. While the

borderlines between the second and the third groups are discussed mostly in general

terms without giving exact data, the situation with the sab‘ iw l and the mufa al is

quite different. There is a lot of discussion about the seventh element of the group of

the Seven Long.6 As for the mufa al, both Zarkash and Suy quote 12 different

views as to what s ra is the first in this group, the most popular being the view that

the group begins with the s ra “Q f” (no. 50).

Four observations can be made in respect to this ad th and its interpretation

as the indication of the existing overall compositional plan of the Qur’ n.

6 See my publication: Dmitry Frolov. The Problem of the «Seven Long» S ras. –

Studies in Arabic and Islam. Proceedings of the 19th

Congress, UEAI, Halle 1998.

Leuven: Peeters, 2002, с. 193-203.

14

First, the four groups mentioned roughly correspond to four periods of

revelation known in the European Qur’ nic studies, though I never came across

any reference to it in the special literature.

Second, there is a direct indication that the main dividing line was between

what was considered as having no parallels in the Bible and what was understood

as being a parallel to the Biblical texts. This dividing line approximately

corresponds to the dividing line between the early Meccan s ras which reflect little

if any Biblical influence, and late Meccan and Medinan s ras which are flooded with

Biblical images, stories, allusions.

Third, if we look more closely at the sequence of main themes of the first three

groups: the Law, the stories of the Prophets and the eschatology and ethics, we see in

it a close parallel to the compositional plan of both the Hebrew Bible – the Torah (the

Pentateuch), the Early Prophets, the Late Prophets and Wisdom literature – and the

New Testament – the Four Gospels, the Acts and the Epistles and the Revelation of

St. John.

Four, it can also be inferred from the tradition and its discussion that the

compositional plan of the Qur’ n as reflected in its canonical version is understood as

a kind of intertwining of the plans of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. As a

result the most perfect and all-embracing Scripture, destined to substitute the

previous ones, was created. Elsewhere (Halle, 1998) I had an opportunity to show

that the composition of the first four s ras (or five, if we also include the F ti a), was

understood as based on exactly the same principle, the superimposition of the plan of

the Gospel on the plan of the Pentateuch.7

Second, the idea about the existing of the overall compositional plan of the

Qur’ n seems to be of a rather late origin. Earlier is the notion of the existing of the

compositional nuclei represented by groups of s ras placed in succession. The most 7 See my article quoted above.

15

often discussed among them are the Seven Long s ras, which are considered to be

the opening block of the Qur’ n parallel to those of the Hebrew Bible (the

Pentateuch) and the New Testament (the Four Gospels) and the eschatological

(mostly) block of the Seven aw m m (nos. 40-46), which was considered to be the

heart, or center (lubb) of the Qur’ n. It seems that to round off the composition we

need a final block of the seven s ras. So I was very glad to find out that Suy in the

Itq n quoted al-R ghib al-I bah n (d. 1108), a companion of Ghaz l and an

authority in the Qur’ nic studies, who said in his Mufrad t al-Qur' n that the term

al-mufa al covers the last seven s ras of the mu af.

If we turn to the data, however insecure, we possess of the structure of the

early codices, namely that of Ibn Mas‘ d (d. 32/653), Ubayy (d. 21/642), and ‘Ali (d.

40/661), we can discern in them the confirmation of the existence of these blocks at

the very early stage (maybe as a first step to the compilation of the Qur’ n). We also

get somewhat bewildering information about the number and the order of the s ras in

them.

The Seven Long form the compact group in the codices of Ibn Mas‘ d and

Ubayy with the 10th s ra as the seventh element though the order is different:

2,4,3,7,6,5,10 (Ibn Mas‘ d) and 2,4,3,6,7,5,10 (Ubayy). If we turn to the Ya‘q b 's

version of the composition of ‘Al 's codex (most definitely forged, but maybe

reflecting some early prototype) where the s ras are divided in the seven groups, we

see a similar picture. Each group begins with a s ra of the group of the Seven Long

and this means that they also form a sequence of a sort (a kind of a compositional

acrostic), the seventh element being, as in the ‘Uthm n's codex, not the 10th s ra, but

the block of the 8th + the 9

th s ras.

We can make – with near certainty – four observations. First, the group of the

Seven Long was a real building block for the compilation of the Qur’ n. Second,

judging by the data of the Traditions, the very term, the Seven Long, was known

16

already at the time of the Prophet. Third, neither the elements nor the order of them

were known with certainty even to the Companions closest to Mu ammad. Fourth, as

I showed earlier (Halle, 1998) the order closest to the principle of decreasing length

is that of Ibn Mas‘ d, whose codex looks the most archaic of all.

The group of the seven aw m m is a compact block not only in the

‘Uthm nic codex, but also in the codex of Ibn Mas` d. Only the order there is

different (40, 43, 41, 42, 46, 45, 44) being once again very close to the realisation of

the principle of decreasing length (40, 42, 43, 41, 46, 45, 44). In the codex of ‘Al

(Ya‘q b 's version) the elements of the group once again distributed between the

seven groups, one in each, the order being 41, 44, 42, 43, 40, 45, 46. Only in the

codex of Ubayy this group is not treated as a compact block at all. The reason for this

fact might be the fact that both versions of the order of s ras in this codex (that of Ibn

al-Nad m and Suy ) are most deficient in the middle part.

The last seven s ras of the Qur' n give the following result. In the codex of Ibn

Mas‘ d, from which the s ras 113-114 were missing, the rest five form the compact

final block (110, 108, 109, 111, 112), in the version of Suy followed by the no. 94.

In the codex of Ubayy all the seven also form a compact block and the order is that of

the ‘Uthm n codex, though there are one or two insertions in the middle of the group:

Ibn al-Nad m – 108, [97], 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114; Suy – 108, [97], 109, 110,

111, [106], 112, 113, 114.

It turns out that these groups were real building blocks in the compilation of

the Qur’ n but the number and the order of elements in them were in the beginning

not fixed. Later, in the process of the elaboration of the final canonical version both

aspects were fixed. The number of elements in each group was understood as

corresponding to the number of seven which has special symbolic significance in

relation to the Qur’ n. The reasons for establishing the final order of elements latter

are not exactly clear at the present moment, but they are anything but an attempt to

17

comply with the principle of decreasing length. Were it so, the version of Ibn Mas‘ d

would have been in the two cases the most preferable. By the way, the principle of

decreasing length, so popular with the European scholars, in the sources studied is

mentioned only once and, so to say, in passing.

Third, all the authors give much attention to the paired s ras grouped

according to some kind of formal or meaningful affinity between them which – and

not individual s ras – are understood to be the building blocks in the composition of

the Qur’ n. They are the blocks 1-2, 2-3, 8-9, 65-66, 81-82, 93-94, 105-106, 113-114

and others. Ibn al-Zubayr in the conclusion of his exposition of the teaching about the

composition of the Qur’ n specially states, that many – but not all – s ras are thus

paired in the structure of the text.

10. In this presentation I only managed to cover several aspects of the theory

about the composition of the Qur’ n which had not been so far the object of much

attention from the part of European scholars. The study of the disciplines dealing

with tart b and tan sub only begins, and if I managed to draw the attention of my

colleagues to their importance, I would consider the task of this presentation fulfilled.